This nameless line is highly effective against the Sicilian Defense

Ok, I’ll Bite!

What is the OP clever idea with the Knight on g1 and Bishop on f1?

The below diagram is the position the OP plays.

Players have told the OP why not just wait 1 move and play Chekhover variation which many players seem to be in agreement with that it is a reasonable line.

The OP even seeing the above line still favors his line over the Chekhover variation.

So What Gives?

The positions are very similar.

The only difference I can see his the Knight on f3 vs. staying on g1.

And if Black plays Nc6 in the Chekhover line white can play Bb5 vs. staying on f1.

So the question is does the OP have different squares he plans to play those pieces?

Is that why he is reluctant on playing the Chekhover because he secretly has a clever set of moves that he plans to do with his Knight on g1 or Bishop on f1?

Is their some sneaky Ne2 to g3 idea he is trying to conjure up here?

Queen on d3 + Pawn on e4 does hit f5 square.

Ne2 to g3 would give a 3rd attacker f5 square.

What if you play h3 - Than played Be2 to g4 trying to induce a trade of Light Square Bishops.

It would give you a 4th attacked on the f5 square.

What a sick, crazy, and completely convoluted idea!

I like it!

Out of no where a Chess Plan appeared!

There is this anti-sicilian called the carlsen variation

were white will play b3 bb2, 0-0-0, f3 etc. Its very interesting stuff. unfortunately it can only be played vs 2.d6 not 2.nc6

If the OP can’t come up with a Rational, Logical, Chess related reason on why he is playing his moves, Then I am forced to believe the OP moves are inaccuracies.

Anyone he beats with these errors will be chalked up as Fluke Wins.

Thats all!

I gave the OP the Benefit of the doubt.

Maybe, there was something the OP had up his sleeve.

Seems like the OP is sleeveless.

Maybe, the OP can share a Chess Game showcasing his moves so people can see what his plans are.

Seems interesting. Too bad I’m not an e4 player.

You're not anywhere close to being a titled player, and are using a throwaway account to brag about your openings you somehow know more about than world-class GM's. That's pathetic. What's even more pathetic is you trying to justify openings where you let black equalize, when black chooses incorrect replies, rather than giving the correct replies objectively, and then explaining in what ways *either* player can go wrong.

In your first game, after 5 Nc3 e6 6 Bf4, ...Bb4 achieves nothing since White has Nge2 available, but this doesn't hurt black anyway, and after the moves you gave in the note: 7 Nge2 0-0 8 0-0-0 Qa5 9 a3, but why didn't you give the correct move 9...Bc5!, rather than the passive 9...Be7?!, which can be met by 10 Nd4 or Kb1, with advantage? Why not give the best move?

Furthermore, after 6 Bf4, black can choose the nice move ...a6, where 7 Nge2?! b5! is weak. And trying to stop ...b5 with the standard 7 a4? is awful due to the extremely strong 7...Qa5, with a brutal pin, and already White is much worse and in danger of losing already. 8 Bd2?? loses on the spot to Nb4 0-1--nice job moving your queen out too early! 0-0-0 walks into a violent attack with 8...b5, 8 Nf3 allows 8...d5, and you have problems with the pin and the hanging Bf4, and 8...Nb4, gaining a tempo on that Qd3, followed by 9...d5! may be even better.

7 0-0-0 b5 8 e5 Qc7 9 Qf3 Ng8 can lead to a quick repetition: 10 Ne4 Bb7 11 Nd6+ Bxd6 12 exd6 Qa5 13 Qg3 Kf8, with Be3/Bd2 on Qa5/Qb6. White simply doesn't have enough pieces out to do damage, and he has no targets. 7 Be2 is also equal.

White has no advantage. So what is so fascinating about playing a position that is completely level? If you want to put your queen in the center, play d4 on the third move vs 2...d6 and Qxd4.

And Najdorf players will not respond to 2 Nf3 with ...Nc6. Plus, 2... Nc6 allows the option 3 Bb5, since 3...Nd4 is premature because of 4 Nxd4 cxd4 5 c3.

This position is far better for white than your equal line that you recommend.

bro the fact that a titled player is critiquing you means that you should probably take a break.

Only mediocres like you can put their trust in a title, whether one has it or not.

I challenge you to a match with 1+0 and 3+0 games

let’s see what your title is worth, ignorant one.

Moreover, in this match, you will be forced to play the Sicilian every time.

Do you dare or not? I’m waiting here to shut you up, and then you can tell me if my Sicilian is good or not.

I have more online Elo than that idiot

is some pompous, second rate little master going to teach me lessons?

I've already explained why.

Playing d4 on the second move is more practical than Nf3.

Also, Black can play Nc6, and then you can never play Qxd4.

The Qd3 line is a very, very secondary variation within the Checkhover, so you could say that Qd3 doesn’t really have a name and belongs to one of those lines that are very profitable for White in practice.

And seriously, it doesn’t matter what the analysis engine says. The Sicilian and open games (1. e4 e5) always lead to equality. That’s why, in the end, there isn’t much difference between playing a Ruy-Lopez, a Scotch, a King’s Gambit, or a Center Game, because the evaluation difference given by the engine is almost the same.

Why on earth should White be afraid of 2…Nc6?

Databases show 2…d6 or e6 as far more challenging for white vs. 2…Nc6?

Do you value the Knight move over the pawn moves?

You know I remember reading some where how Older Chess Masters from the past use to put higher value on developing moves.

Pawn moves were shunned more due to the fact they didn’t develop a piece causing a player to fall behind in piece development.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm - It does make me wonder.

Playing d4 to prevent 2…Nc6 is very unusual.

Its a interesting way to prevent a move I guess.

I have follow up question.

Why Qd3?

The Queen could go to several different squares.

What makes d3 so special?

It's not about being afraid of 2...Nc6.

It's about looking for the best practical option to achieve the best return on your results.

You may have studied in-depth the Rossolimo, Pelikan, or Lowenthal variations of the open Sicilian with the white pieces.

The problem is that your opponent, who plays 2...Nc6, will always have more experience than you against these lines, even though, as I mentioned, your opening knowledge may be greater than your opponent's.

It’s hard to surprise your rival if he is playing dozens of Sicilian defenses with 2...Nc6 every day, dozens of Pelikans, Rossolimos, etc.

Then you ask me why Qd3 and not another square.

The reason is that from Qd3, the queen will be able, at some point, to move to g3 or h3, and also the bishop on c1 is free to go to f4 or g5. From e3, that wouldn’t be possible.

But that’s not the main reason why Qd3 is better than Qe3.

If you play Qe3, Black has a very strong line with Nf6 followed by d5, and according to the game database, White already gives up the initiative to Black, and the results speak for themselves; Black scores very well

Jan Gustafsson created two videos on this variation a few months ago on his YouTube-Channel. He's speaking german, but it might still be instructive, especially the video where he uses this variation in games against his subscribers.

Gustafsson on the theory

Gustafsson using the variation in practice

@nyzaro, your posts #15, #27, and #28 have forced me to reevaluate the illusions that I was under that you might be a decent chess player.

The first reason for this is that you have not once critiqued your own lines or responded to anyone else analyzing them, the second is that you claim you reached 2150 FIDE with self-taught grandmaster analysis but your lines are based on 2200-2500 Lichess database analysis with dubious reasoning and unfair criteria for winrate comparisons, the third is that your entire response to an NM’s accurate critique of your positions and analysis was to personally attack him for multiple paragraphs on the basis of your online ELO (despite his FIDE rating and title) without responding to his actual analysis of the position, and the fourth and final is that you admitted that you would choose different lines for classical or OTB play.

At what point have I admitted that I would choose different lines for classical chess or over-the-board chess? How can you be so manipulative? When have I said I wouldn’t play this line of Qxd4 and Qd3 over the board?

Can you tell me the moment, or have you just come to talk trash like that National Master?

If I haven’t replied to his analysis, it’s because he came into my thread to insult me, insult my person, try to make an argument of authority against someone he doesn’t know, as if his academic title of master gave more credibility to his arguments.

I’m not going to debate lines with someone like that.

However, I’ve given him the option to play a match at 3/0 and 1/0 to prove whether my line in the Sicilian Qxd4 and Qd3 is good or not.

Silence means agreement, because he still hasn’t responded to my challenge

I rescind that last reason in which I said that you would not play this line in Classical/OTB chess. I was apparently referring to your other forum post in which you said “But as of today, I believe that while these openings may not be advisable in long games, where it's harder to take the opponent out of preparation, in fast games, the best approach is to play fun, dangerous lines to catch our opponents off guard.”

Everything else stands, however. I didn’t come to talk trash, I want to see you refute analysis. You are under no obligation to respond to his disparaging remarks (which I disapprove of, much as I disapprove of yours and my own, which I apologize for), but as the one who has introduced the line, you are under the burden of proving the line worthwhile, as his current statements challenging your lines authority remain unanswered, and in your own words, “Silence means agreement, because he still hasn’t responded to my challenge”.

So you didn’t understand what I said correctly, or I didn’t explain myself well in that comment. I was referring to the lines like the Latvian Gambit, Englund Gambit, or Herrstrom Gambit where Black sacrifices a pawn, and if White plays correctly according to the engine, they maintain a more or less stable advantage, which means starting the game with a handicap.

In blitz, there’s no need to be afraid of that, but in classical games, it’s too risky. As I said in that comment, in slow or classical OTB games, you need a different approach, a more patient game, because in slow chess, taking too many risks at the start of the game, with gambits, etc., is heavily penalized in the long term

That doesn’t mean that Qxd4 and Qd3 can’t be played in slow games because there you’re not risking a pawn or a knight.

So, this line is totally playable, where if Black plays perfectly, they will achieve full equality but nothing more

Regarding the lines, tell me exactly which one you want to discuss, and I’ll respond with my analysis.

Yes, that is why I rescinded (retracted) that statement. I understand that now, but at the original time of writing I was mistaken.

I will certainly respond again later to your lines with my own analysis.

I decided to give the OP line a try.

The OP hasn’t said how exactly he plays the line or the plans of the line so I decided to improvise.

The plan I implement was controlling f5 square.

I sort of talked about this plan in this thread and it seemed like the only plan I could think of at the time so I tried it to see what would happen.

A lot of mistakes from both sides, but the game I had ended in a Draw.

My position felt worse most of the time in the game.

I took some time in the opening because I thought about playing c4 on a few occasions, but decided not to play it because the OP never mentioned it as an idea so I wanted to keep the position more original/similar to the OP line.

The C file pressure was difficult to parry in the OP line. I suppose the OP knows about the C file pressure so that’s why he plays c3.

I didn’t want to play c3 in game because I had already played a3 and it would cause to many Queen side holes.

I think it would have just made my opponent attack on Queen side + C file worse.

What other options does the line have?

Perhaps, I could try again with different idea.

5 . Ne2 is a very passive move.

You should play Nc3, and then sometimes Nf3

but not always. It depends on whether Black chooses the d6 or e6 line.

I don’t understand your concern about the move f5.

Also, I’ve checked the line that the many players play the most in this variation, and in my opinion, White is making a mistake by allowing f5.

I’m going to show an example.

To prevent this future f5, I suggest playing Nd5 first, along with c3, which helps fight against the g7 bishop. When you play Nd5, the b2 pawn becomes attacked by the g7 bishop, which is why c3 is played.

I’ll show you an example of the line that worries me and that many White players go for. Then, in the second diagram, I’ll show my recommendation to avoid getting into Black’s counterplay.

So your idea is to do a radical pawn transformation. I actually do like that idea because I think the current pawn structure is a hindrances to your piece formation.